Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:44:10.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ENGINEERING STUDENT ATTAINMENT AND ENGAGEMENT THROUGHOUT THE DESIGN PROCESS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Avril Thomson  and
Hilary Grierson
Avril Thomson*
Affiliation:
University of Strathclyde
Hilary Grierson
Affiliation:
University of Strathclyde
*
Thomson, Avril, University of Strathclyde, DMEM, United Kingdom, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The paper reports on a study that aims to gain an understanding of how senior engineering design students engage and attain throughout the various stages of the design process during a major design project. Following a literature review it sets out to answer 3 main research questions

Q1. Do students engage more with certain stages of the design process during major project work?;

Q2. Do students attain better during certain phases of the design process during major project ?

Q3. Is there a difference in this attainment between year groups of the same degree programme ?

The methodology adopted employs an analysis of marks and an online questionnaire to collect data. Patterns and trends in how senior BEng and MEng Product Design Engineering students engage and attain within the design process are presented, identified and discussed and in turn used to inform reflection on the research questions set.

Keywords

Design educationDesign processDesign engineeringattainmentengagement
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 1373 - 1382
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Altman, C. J., Chinka, J. R., Bursic, K. M. & Nachman, H. L., 1999. A comparison of freshman and senior. Design Studies, 20(2), pp. 131–152.10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00031-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, M. R., 1995. Product Design: a practical guide to systematic methods of new product development. London: Chapman and Hall.10.1201/9781315275246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beder, S., 1999. Beyond technicalities: expanding engineering thinking. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering, 125(1), pp. 12–18.10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(1999)125:1(12)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, R. & Sobek, D. K. II, 2004. How Process Affects Performance: An Analysis of Student Design Productivity. Salt Lake City, ASME 2004 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.10.1115/DETC2004-57274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N., 2006. Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
de Vere, I., Melles, G. & Kapoor, A., 2009. Product design engineering – a global education trend in multidisciplinary training for creative product design. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35(1), pp. 33–43.10.1080/03043790903312154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council, Design, 2015. The Design Process: What is the Double Diamond?. [Online] Available at: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/design-process-what-double-diamond Accessed 6th April 2020].Google Scholar
Dym, C. L. et al. , 2005. Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), pp. 103–120.Google Scholar
English, L. D., Hudson, P. B. & Dawes, L., 2012. Engineering design processes in seventh-grade classrooms: bridging the engineering education gap. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35(1), pp. 436–447.10.1080/03043797.2012.708721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farris, J. A. et al. , 2015. A Structured Approach for Assessing the Effectiveness of Engineering Design Tools in New Product Development. Engineering Management Journal, 19(2), pp. 31–39.10.1080/10429247.2007.11431729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felder, R. M., 1996. Matters of Style. ASEE Prism, 6(4), pp. 18–23.Google Scholar
Jensen, B. B., Hogberg, S., Jensen, F. F. & Mijatovic, N., 2012. Enhanced learning through design problems – teaching a components-based course through design. European Journal of Engineering Education, 37(4), pp. 375–382.10.1080/03043797.2012.700303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiernan, L. & Ledwith, A., 2014. Is Design Education Preparing Product Designers for the Real World? A Study of Product Design Graduates in Ireland. The Design Journal, 17(2), pp. 218–237.Google Scholar
Eng, Product Design., U., 2017. Product Design Engineering. [Online] Available at: https://www.strath.ac.uk/courses/undergraduate/productdesignengineeringbeng/ [Accessed 6th April 2020].Google Scholar
Pugh, S., 1991. Total Design. 1st ed. England: Addidon-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Spezia, C. J., 2009. A task-oriented design project for improving student performance. Journal of Engineering Technology, 26(1), pp. 24–30.Google Scholar
Stack, L., 2006. What is Product Design?. Switzerland: RotoVision.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K. T. & Eppinger, S. D., 2000. Product design engineering. Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Violante, M. G. & Vezzetti, E., 2017. Guidelines to design engineering education in the twenty-first century for supporting innovative product development. European Journal of Engineering Education, Volume 42, p. 21.Google Scholar